Apple pushes FCC to keep 'super-high' spectrum free for 5G & other future tech

Posted:
in iPhone
Apple is pressuring the U.S. Federal Communication Commission to keep "super-high" radio frequencies -- between 95 and 3,000 gigahertz -- open to use for 5G cellular data and other possible purposes.

Apple iPhone X


The company made the recommendation in a response filed with the FCC. It suggests the Commission operate with "the goal of encouraging a range of innovative business and engineering approaches that market forces determine best utilize these frequencies," and avoid "restrictive regulations, band plans, or predictions about future uses of the bands that could dictate outcomes and limit innovation."

Apple is particularly worried about the prospect of being limited to "a few narrow unlicensed bands" without knowing how it might want them in the future. It's also appealing to a nationalist perspective, claiming that onerous restrictions could let other countries gain an edge.

The company is already testing 5G for iPhones and other devices. Partner carriers like AT&T and T-Mobile are meanwhile planning to launch limited coverage this year.

5G is widely considered vital to future technologies. 4G is typically fast enough for music, video, gaming, and Web browsing, but things like augmented reality, virtual reality, and self-driving vehicles require minimal lag while consuming vast amounts of bandwidth.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,684member
    I had really crappy service at my home using AT&T, 1-2 bars max, couldn't even talk while inside my house, had to go outside. I decided to switch to Verizon since they assured me that their network coverage was vastly superior. Turns out it is the same crappy connection. Mind you I'm in the center of LA county, one of the largest cities in the world. I wish these providers would invest more on putting up towers. 5G will mean nothing to me if I can't get a signal.
    edited May 9 bonobobllamaurahara
  • Reply 2 of 14
    taddtadd Posts: 64member
    10 years from now the cell networks will be talking about frequent automatic switching between cell-sites which will include low earth orbiting satellites.   bandwidth usage is going to be very big.  That or we'll all be baked by microwave energy.  
  • Reply 3 of 14
    fh-acefh-ace Posts: 40member
    volcan said:
    I had really crappy service at my home using AT&T, 1-2 bars max, couldn't even talk while inside my house, had to go outside. I decided to switch to Verizon since they assured me that their network coverage was vastly superior. Turns out it is the same crappy connection. Mind you I'm in the center of LA county, one of the largest cities in the world. I wish these providers would invest more on putting up towers. 5G will mean nothing to me if I can't get a signal.
    I totally agree with what you’ve said volcan. Here’s a good one for you... 4 blocks from Apples infinite loop buildings AT&T gives you 1 bar outside and no bars inside. The “heart” of the Silicon Valley and no signal. Between the phone companies lack of towers and the cities not wanting to add towers and the nimby’s “we don’t want them here”, I’m not sure that there will ever be a time when we all get good coverage. 
    curtis hannahtaddapplesnorangesjcs2305jony0
  • Reply 4 of 14
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,684member
    fh-ace said:
    Between the phone companies lack of towers and the cities not wanting to add towers and the nimby’s “we don’t want them here”, I’m not sure that there will ever be a time when we all get good coverage. 
    I don't know why the cities don't want the towers. They could make a lot of money putting them on city owned property. A friend of mine who owns some land near the I-15 in San Diego county earns around $20K a month for letting Verizon put a tower on is property. The tower is disguised as a tree so you don't even see it.
  • Reply 5 of 14
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 1,995member
    volcan said:
    I had really crappy service at my home using AT&T, 1-2 bars max, couldn't even talk while inside my house, had to go outside. I decided to switch to Verizon since they assured me that their network coverage was vastly superior. Turns out it is the same crappy connection. Mind you I'm in the center of LA county, one of the largest cities in the world. I wish these providers would invest more on putting up towers. 5G will mean nothing to me if I can't get a signal.
    It's so bizarre having those issues in large cities. There are times when I'm on the 210 or 5 and have like 1-2 bars. It's pretty ridiculous. I'll even lose my LTE connection and it goes to 2G. That shouldn't happen in a large city. 
  • Reply 6 of 14
    nunzynunzy Posts: 662member
    It sounds like Apple has something in the pipeline. :p
    caladanian
  • Reply 7 of 14
    tylersdadtylersdad Posts: 127member
    It's interesting to me that the same reasons Apple gives for opposing having to pay for 5G spectrum is the same reasoning those of us who were anti-Net Neutrality gave for opposing Net Neutrality. 

    Apple came out against the repeal of Net Neutrality.
  • Reply 8 of 14
    Filing a comment using the normal channels shouldn't be characterized as "pressuring" (referring to the first sentence of this article).
  • Reply 9 of 14
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    tadd said:
    That or we'll all be baked by microwave energy.  
    Don’t worry. It will be the slow damage kind that tears apart chromosomes and gives us cancer, so we won’t notice it and no one will do anything about it.  :D
  • Reply 10 of 14
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,735member
    volcan said:
    fh-ace said:
    Between the phone companies lack of towers and the cities not wanting to add towers and the nimby’s “we don’t want them here”, I’m not sure that there will ever be a time when we all get good coverage. 
    I don't know why the cities don't want the towers. They could make a lot of money putting them on city owned property. A friend of mine who owns some land near the I-15 in San Diego county earns around $20K a month for letting Verizon put a tower on is property. The tower is disguised as a tree so you don't even see it.
    They look like crap around here, and no, trees are not routinely 100 feet high and skinny around here.

    Considering the companies make tens of millions over their lifetime from those towers, the rental should be way higher, that's probably another reason for cities not wanting them.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,735member
    Filing a comment using the normal channels shouldn't be characterized as "pressuring" (referring to the first sentence of this article).
    Clickbait rules the world.
  • Reply 12 of 14
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Filing a comment using the normal channels shouldn't be characterized as "pressuring" (referring to the first sentence of this article).
    Everything is slammed, destroyed, pressured, harassed, dropped a bombshell, obliterated, ruined, humiliated… All words chosen because of the historic scale of their impact. This is on purpose. It is malicious. It is the bastardization of language for the express purpose of desensitizing the public to the events happening around them, as well as the scale of said events. And in a totally unrelated statement, It’s something that precedes every overt communist takeover in history.
    foggyhill said:
    They look like crap around here, and no, trees are not routinely 100 feet high and skinny around here.
    “Don’t mind me, just being a wolf tree*…” 



    *not quite, but I’m not sure what to call it…
    edited May 9 mattinoz
  • Reply 13 of 14
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,684member
    They look like crap around here, and no, trees are not routinely 100 feet high and skinny around here.
    “Don’t mind me, just being a wolf tree*…” 
    Looks a lot better than this!

    edited May 9
  • Reply 14 of 14
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 1,995member
    foggyhill said:
    volcan said:
    fh-ace said:
    Between the phone companies lack of towers and the cities not wanting to add towers and the nimby’s “we don’t want them here”, I’m not sure that there will ever be a time when we all get good coverage. 
    I don't know why the cities don't want the towers. They could make a lot of money putting them on city owned property. A friend of mine who owns some land near the I-15 in San Diego county earns around $20K a month for letting Verizon put a tower on is property. The tower is disguised as a tree so you don't even see it.
    They look like crap around here, and no, trees are not routinely 100 feet high and skinny around here.

    Considering the companies make tens of millions over their lifetime from those towers, the rental should be way higher, that's probably another reason for cities not wanting them.
    The palm tree cell towers here in California don't look that bad really. 
    volcan
Sign In or Register to comment.